Free will makes authoritarianism inevitable.

This is due to 2 irrefutable facts o’ reality:

• There is only 1 reality for mo’ than 1 people,¹ which must remain consistent with the multitude’s inconsistent goals.
• One’s actions can affect others.

If multiple people have different goals for how 1 piece o’ reality should be shaped, only 1 o’ those goals can logically be completed—whether 1 completely usurps the others or there is a compromise o’ goals. This will inevitably lead to irreconcilable conflicts—’specially with the huge # o’ people in this 1 world we live in.

Inevitably, some o’ those people’s free wills will entice them to use force to complete their goals; the only way to stifle this force is a different use o’ force. Therefore, no matter which forces are enacted & which win, some force is bound to be used & win.

There has ne’er been a power structure that has kept its power without using force, nor has the world e’er allowed everyone to do whatever she wants.

Note that there are, ’course, different ways to measure authoritarianism, however. For instance, both democracy & totalitarianism are authoritarian; the former is simply mo’ balanced in for whom the use o’ force benefits.

Economics follows the same logic. Though all economic systems are authoritarian—private property is just as much forced onto society through government force as public—there are different ways to measure economic systems, such as for whom they benefit, or how efficient they are. It’s wrong to say that US-style economics is superior to Soviet-style due to being “free”; but it is logical to say that it is due to benefiting a better balance o’ people (due to its property control being slightly mo’ decentralized) & its greater efficiency from the slightly greater competition through said decentralization. This also explains why “social democracies” usually do better than both, as they—through wealth-spreading income redistribution—are e’en mo’ decentralized than the mo’ oligarchical laissez-faire economies.

“Why (Some) Psychopaths Make Great CEOs”

Actually, the article itself is a mess o’ backward & forward sputtering that doesn’t seem to have any point. 1 o’ the reasons I utterly abhor Forbes, the same as why I hate the New York Times, is that though they love to brag ’bout how brilliant they are, they’re actually strikingly imbecilic¹–‘cept the New York Times a’least doesn’t make me question if they’re literate (well, save Routhat). It’s the kind o’ thing that almost makes me feel sorry for market fundamentalists. What happened? Did the vile commies infect all o’ your water supplies with lead?

They admit that “great CEOs” can oft be sociopaths, & some Marxist e’en snuck in, “Then you realize that because of this dysfunctional capitalistic society we live in [having a boner for firing people & wondering what human flesh tastes like²] were positives,” which was fun; but then they try to pour water all o’er it in the hope o’ diluting the sour taste such a statement makes. For instance, when you think ’bout it, all o’ those people who rag on capitalists for loving to fuck with people like cats to a rat it’s ’bout to kill, they kinda don’t have empathy for people who love screwing with people, so they’re kinda sociopaths in a way themselves. Also, I was intrigued by this brand o’ people who apparently believe the world to be run by “blood-drinking, baby-sacrificing lizards.” I always viewed the world as run by, well, sociopaths; but then, maybe I’m just an outlier. I’m sure Ronson’s example is accurate & reasonable & not @ all a ludicrous strawman.

The reason for the positive relation ‘tween capitalist & sociopathy has been known forever: its hard to treat someone else as a subordinate when you think o’ them as one thinks o’ oneself–the definition o’ empathy. It’s the same reason this same connection exists ‘mong government officials³–or anyone in power. After all, capitalists are simply government officials in denial: they control people through property just as governments do. E’en their main defense–”If you don’t like my rules, go somewhere else”–can be just as fairly made by governments. Indeed, any hierarchical social organization presumes that some people are less than others; why else would some deserve less power than others?

In the past people acknowledged this: they called it “Social Darwinism,” e’en though ’twas actually Herbert Spencer who hocked it up. It’s only later that this imaginary hippie-commie “Let’s Put Dildos in Each Other’s Bum™” version o’ capitalism has seemed to infect people’s minds–@ the loss o’ aggregate brain cells.

Adendum

I think the ruby has to be a quote by the guy they interviewed as a ‘scuse to peddle his incoherent pop-psychology:

…the average anxiety-ridden business failure like me — although the fact that my book just made the Times best sellers list makes it difficult to call myself that…

It’s my favorite kind o’ modesty–the David Brooks kind: talk ’bout how modest one is while jerking oneself off. Safety procedures always mandate that one should wear protective covering while in the presence o’ such writing to protect oneself gainst splashed jism.

Note that Forbes doesn’t italicize the Times, which means they either despise those gross liberals so much or are, sniff, low-class in their style–or they can’t figure out how to make italics on this here hip-fangled WordPress thing.

Footnotes

• [1] I realize they could all be liars; but this still requires them to be willing to trade their dignity for the few nickels these cheap papers probably threw them. Most people a’least have some pride in the words that will be attached to their names.
• [2] He could’ve just done what I always do & suck on his hand. This shows that there’s clearly a greater problem than capitalists being sociopaths: they’re also stupid. ‘Nother missed opportunity for the so-called opportunists.
• [3] I tried to actually look up a study like a valid info source, but all I found was a bunch o’ laissez-faire filler & became depressed @ the existence o’ such an immense mass o’ density. We all know the government’s full o’ sociopaths, anyway, c’mon.

Sorry for my lack o’ updates—as well as all o’ the poetry in crippled Spanish. The bourgeoisie have tampered with my computer so that it becomes overheated with the passion o’ the upcoming sexy revolutions, so I can’t use it as much till I get that fixed.

But I have to discuss a few quality crimes o’ writing I’ve seen recently—recently being, for my slow work, last month:

I.

1st, this will be the last time I discuss Noah Smith’s fine work, but I feel like this synthesizes my commentary on his & Mankiw’s work. Smith recently wrote ’nother article jerking off economics, this time making up some faux-nerdy term to show how valiantly economics has avoided being taken up by the vile left & right¹. In this case he focuses on our friends, the Austrian-schoolers, ’cause they’re not clever ’nough to hide their biases.

What Smith fails to realize is that that’s simply ’cause nobody wants economics: both the left & the right build populist support by bashing economics, which everyone can agree has failed either by being too left, too right, centrist—whatever ideology one most despises. The point is, we all know economists suck ’cause they’ve done nothing but fail for the past few decades. The only people who defend economists are economists themselves—since they still need an ’scuse for all that phat loot.

Typically, throughout this rant he defends economics purely on the basis that it is purportedly “left-wing”—whatever vapid meaning he grants that empty term. & yet, @ the same time, he argues that mainstream economics has already co-opted Austrian-school ideology. So, ’gain, Smith shows that he doesn’t e’en read his own work or is deliberately trying to mess with his readers’ minds, since none o’ his shit makes sense, yo. Mo’ than likely, he is attempting to do that double-sided self-praise that pundits always do wherein they praise themselves for being successful in the mainstream while also pitying themselves for not being completely successful. You may recognize it as the same rhetoric Forbes used when they tried to show that capitalism was both triumphant & nonexistent, ’cause everything’s socialist now. It’s a universal technique, as it’s important to make one’s disciples feel urgent ’nough to act gainst a powerful threat while not discouraging them.

The truth is that, as the study that Smith misinterprets shows, economists are biased in favor o’ centrism, ’cause that’s the least controversial, & thus the 1 that’s most likely to make them appear smart to the most people, since everyone only thinks those who already agree with them are smart. If economists are starting to turn leftward, it’s only ’cause that’s what the media’s already turning toward. Notably, Smith can’t ’splain why economists are now turning leftward, other than that it’s what the hip people do, since that seems to be what Smith considers to be most important. For instance, his criticism for Post-Keynesians in his li’l bestiary² is purely based on their not agreeing with him, without ’splaining why they—or anyone—should.

But the problem with economists like Smith has nothing to do with them being “mainstream” or “left-wing” or “right-wing”; their problem is something probably far mo’ heartbreaking to pseudonerds like Smith: that they’re just plain dumb. We can see this by the childish rhetorical games that Smith—as well as e’en mo’ respected economists, like Mankiw—use that wouldn’t e’en pass a freshman logic class.

I also love his parting sentence, which shows the kind o’ mental cancer economists must harbor:

Econ’s relatively strong resistance to political sci-jacking is not inconsistent with its recent leftward turn.

See, there’s a huge difference ’tween an “objective science” twisting coincidentally with the media’s tide o’ political views & the vulgar public media twisting economics toward their views—namely that economists still have their privileged & paid status in the former.

II.

Speaking o’ dumb, let’s take ’nother gander @ 1 o’ the many churches o’ America’s other mindless theology, vapid positivity, & read an article from Careerealism. In this case we have ’nother #’d list for tips on how to defeat one’s fears o’ failure. Who wants to bet none o’ the tips are useful & are, in fact, meaninglessly abstract &/or logically impossible?

We can see that this article’s writer has perfected the craft o’ terrible writing by her logical blunders right @ the 1st paragraph (after a photo representing the trite metaphor o’ a boxer—’cause nobody on the internet has a speck o’ creativity anymo’):

Everyone fears failure, especially as adults. Think about it: As a kid, you made mistakes and you had some failures. So, naturally, as an adult, you don’t want to experience those negative feelings associated with failing again.

Wait: so adults ’specially fear failure ’cause… they hated failure when they were kids? Then logically, kids fear failure just as much, if not mo’. Granted, I would agree that adults would logically fear failure mo’, since they usually don’t have nearly as strong a safety net as kids; but mentioning that would be authentic realism, so, ’course, nary a word is typed on that issue.

The 2nd paragraph uses the website’s own CEO as a source. By this point I think calling capitalism “prostitutionalism” would be just as accurate.

Clearly these go from best to worst, ’cause the 1st is a hoot:

Get a piece of paper and list everything you’re afraid of in your life and career. Are you afraid of failing, having people laugh at you, or having people judge you? No matter what it is you’re afraid of, write it down, and get it out there.

Here’s the fun part: Once you’ve written down all of those fears, crumple up that piece of paper and throw it away!

1st tip: act like a 4-year-ol’. Yes, that’ll show all those villainous fears!

I don’t know if I should be disturbed if this advice involves violence, e’en gainst inanimate objects, or glad that it advises fearful Americans to commit violence gainst inanimate objects, ’stead o’ just lower-class people, as is their custom.

Actually, if the advice were, “Shoot that sonoabitch crumpled paper! Show ’em whose boss!” that’d be hilariously badass. It’d be like that skit with Elmer Fudd shooting the baseball. You missed an ample opportunity as always, Careerealism.

The 2nd tip is either redundant or illogical; I can’t tell ’cause Careerealism’s writers use vague diction like “own,” ’cause they’re shitty writers. If it means, “admit you have fears,” then it’s redundant, ’cause the only reason someone would be reading this article—’less they’re like me & enjoy visiting the Menckenian zoo—is ’cause they’ve already admitted that they have fears. If that’s not what it means, then I have no idea what it’s s’posed to mean—& I have a sense that its writer doesn’t, either.

The 3rd advice is also vague, as well as filled with obnoxious emphasis using all-caps. “Do something!” has always been the rallying cry o’ the vapid middle-class who want to feel wise without putting in any effort—middle-class people being utterly unaccustomed to putting effort into anything.

OK, the 4th tip is literally, “Control What You Can Control.” Now we’re breaking into Poe’s Law. You don’t need to tell Americans to control as much as they can—those power-hungry narcissists want to control everything they possibly can. Better advice would be to tell Americans to stop trying to control things for once—well, ’cept that they wouldn’t listen, ’cause it wouldn’t be in their interests.

Footnotes:

Mainstream views o’ competition are baffling, probably due to the paradoxical nature o’ competition—it’s self-defeating nature.

What does “competitive” mean? It means that the conflict is fair. What is fair conflict? That in which the challenges to all parties are equal; & yet, the goal o’ competition is the opposite: to give oneself as many advantages over others as possible.

Prototypical competitions avoided this problem due to 1 variance from economic competition: limited periods. In prototypical competitions, like races, contestants start @ the same level—or @ levels meant to even people o’ different skills, which could be considered the “coddling liberal” version—& the contest ends @ a specific point.

Economics doesn’t work that way. Rather than starting & stopping @ specific points, it goes on forever, with different individuals starting—being born—& stopping—dying—a’least every minute. This ensures that any period but the very beginning o’ human existence has been rigged by the past & that any period will rig the future.

Thus the paradox o’ the idealistic form o’ competition—so-called meritocracy. Rather than being an enlightened fair fight where the superior succeed & the inferior fail, people become sponges off their own circumstance & use what advantages they start with to build mo’ advantages & mo’ power, making it so that the victors are not the superior, but those who are already victors.

Those with power also have power over the means with which one can gain power, & are wise ’nough to keep those means so that they benefit themselves.

• Politicians use their control o’ election systems to entrench themselves into positions even with low public support, such as through gerrymandering.

• Political parties use that same control to monopolize the election system, allowing them to collude through policy fixing. If Republicans & Democrats agree on a policy, they can eliminate the public’s control over whether that policy is implemented or not by eliminating the choice the parties don’t want entirely.

• Richer people use their superior economic power to give their preferred candidates superior political power—’gain, independent o’ public support—& thus use that political power to gain extra economic advantages, spinning a self-perpetuating cycle.

• Even without direct influence in politics, richer people can simply use their superior economic power to gain mo’ economic power by leveraging their power over the property needed to create resources. This is called “capital” or “usury,” & is oft defended as “time preference,” but ignores unequal economic origins that twist people’s gains ’way from their own action—& thus makes their gains unmeritorious.

Hence the absurdity o’ economists’ “perfect competition” theory¹,—which, to be fair, even most economists don’t take seriously—either worded so vaguely as to be meaningless or so paradoxical that it essentially requires a communist economic distribution to be valid.

The main definition I’ve seen falls into circular logic—as all visions from the church o’ the market inevitably do: when no participant is strong ’nough to control price. ’Course, whether prices are unequally controlled by any participants is defined by whether the market is truly competitive or not; thus, we have no concrete knowledge o’ whether any market is competitive or whether any prices are fair, leaving this definition a mere black hole o’ empty air as intelligent as the average postmodernist nonsense, saying nothing @ all.

Economists’ vague language hides the paradoxical requirements o’ perfect competition. They talk o’ “big #s” o’ participants so that they can hide in the gray area ’tween capitalism’s tendency toward having property controlled by a tiny minority—but 1 that can still be greater than just the uniform monopoly found in “communist” countries like North Korea—& perfectly decentralized access to the market: economic democracy, which is also “communist” through the magic o’ economics’ Orwellian language.

The paradox is the same: in order for conditions to be fair, they must be equal, so that we can make them unequal in a fair way, & thus end the very fair conditions necessary for tomorrow’s competition.

This is the summation o’ the requirements:

• Perfect info: perfect info requires equal access to info. But it’s the very market o’ the media that ensures that this isn’t the case—that assures that the rich have better access to info than poor people.

• No barriers to entrance or exit: As I mentioned, any lack o’ money or resources @ all counts as a barrier compared to one who lacks this lack, & thus this amounts to equal distribution o’ resources. ’Gain, like reverse-Marxists, neoclassicals argue that communism is the 1st step toward the glorious meritorious revolution o’ capitalism!

• 0 transport costs: O, come on! This 1’s obvious!

• Profit maximization: This doesn’t fit under my earlier point, but is still wrong, nevertheless.

• Homogenous products: I love how economists’ cure for capitalism is by tearing out its purported heart. 1 o’ the strengths o’ western capitalism in contrast to Soviet economics was the colorful creativity o’ its products caused by purported decentralized economic activity, as opposed to the generic gray sameness mindlessly manufactured by Soviet inc. Economists tell us that these gray samenesses will be necessary for true competition.

• All labor is equal: Remember how people—inaccurately (para 16)—mocked Marx for purportedly not believing in differences o’ skill in labor. Well, apparently that assumption is necessary for perfect competition as well.

• Property rights: Note that this doesn’t apply to people in the past. Native Americans can be robbed o’ almost all they own & forced to live with that destitution in the present; but we must protect the gains from that theft as ardently as possible.

• Rational buyers: Since we’re talking ’bout humans, we can throw this out immediately.

• No externalities: “Duh… What’s pollution?”

1 o’ the articles I linked claims that only a few economies or industries hold all o’ these. They must have a skewed view o’ economics—for 1, since industries all affect each other, it’s impossible to have a industry that exhibits all o’ these without all doing so as well, not to mention the aforementioned resource distribution problem & the deceptive quality o’ their vague language.

The fact is, perfect competition is the capitalist equivalent o’ communist Utopian fantasies. Much as communist Utopians would write out the conflict & complexities that come with the differences ’tween so many unique people, capitalist economists’ models—fiction stories if written by the shittiest writers in the world²—write out the complexities o’ interaction ’tween humans to push the fantasy o’ their imaginary benign capitalism.

Interestingly, ’mong that list I failed to notice the most common issue o’ competition that economists tend to obsess over, despite its unrealistic value…

Individualism & Competition

The Social Spencerists³ who conflate individuality & competition couldn’t be mo’ wrong: the best way to fail in the world is to forgo the competitive strength o’ collectivity. Whether it be government bureaucracies, corporations, political organizations, or labor unions, classes always succeed when they exploit their shared power to overpower those who are divided.

& despite the sneers @ Marxists, you can’t deny the results o’ its broad tenor o’ “class war”—also known as class competition: the most successful businesses are some o’ the most class conscious, not only in their ardor to connect themselves to any powerful entity—through mergers or investment in political campaigns—but also in their fear o’ the competitive loss from collective lower-class action, never by individualists. Meanwhile, no lower-class person has ever succeeded through individualism: they’ve either connected themselves to the upper-classes (mo’ beneficial but applicable to less people) or formed collective groups, such as unions or political parties (less beneficial but applicable to mo’ people). & despite economists’ criticism o’ labor unions, note the content o’ their criticism: workers in labor unions still benefit; it’s those who aren’t that purportedly suffer⁴. In essence: workers in unions have competitive advantages over those without unions, & thus unionization is still a wiser decision for the rational self-interest o’ those who unionize.

The individuality/collectivism dichotomy is as paradoxical as competition itself. The ol’ Smithist fable regurgitated by economists o’ widespread selfish individualism having altruistic outcomes for the public has the obvious contrast with collective action selfishly taking from others.

But wouldn’t the very selfishness that causes one to push one’s workers as low as possible also convince one to forgo the collective gain o’ individualism—spread thin—in favor o’ the individualist gain o’ collectivist action?

No surprise then that businesses prefer to collude with each other & governments; & no surprise that, in response, workers forgo sharing the gains o’ widespread individualism with corporations that refuse to do the same by forming collectives to get their own share o’ the pie. Much as vulgar socialists who criticize rich people & businesses for being selfish without examining the economic system that pushes them to do so, economists ignorant o’ concrete reality chide lower-class people for acting as any rational individuals would to maximize one’s self-interest through pushing their own wages higher @ the loss o’ collectively-inferior workers. Is it then no surprise that collectivism is so common in economics nowadays when the market proves time & time ’gain that it’s superior by rewarding it mo’ highly?

When the urge for collectivism is so strong in so many classes o’ people, how can the religion o’ individualism possible survive, much less thrive? Even those who claim to support it always sneak their hand in the cookie jar when they think nobody’s looking: a cursory search through websites like Source Watch shows the sheer # o’ “libertarian” think tanks with ties to politics & funded by numerous corporations—all for the collective goal o’ benefiting the general rich class’s rational self-interest.

& what’s to become o’ those who remain resilient in their support for individualism? How do they get power? How could they overpower the closely-connected, vast collectivists?

They can’t. Thus we understand why collectivism thrives & individualism dies: collectivism is stronger. Thus, all political & economic groups learn that they must either join the same collectivist flag or die. You can be sure that any pundit or businessperson successful ’nough to have their own books, TV shows, or other media consumed by the masses must’ve chosen collectivism, or else they wouldn’t have these things in the 1st place.

Indeed, when one thinks ’bout it, isn’t the market nothing but collectivist action? What is trade, the blood o’ the market, but scratching ’nother’s back for getting one’s own back scratched—collusion. In contrast, what is “collective” politics such as the lower-class public using their numeric superiority to enact welfare & regulation but them using their strength to compete with the rich. What could be mo’ entrepreneurial? Mo’ capitalist?

Market-thumpers will, ’course, complain that these money changes create no value; but doesn’t the Subjective Theory o’ Value tell us that we have no right to decide what is & isn’t valuable? Aren’t these economists being just as much “class warriors”?

Thus, to twist a quote from Mark Bevir: we are all collectivists now.

The sad thing is, I’ve probably only scratched the surface o’ what is surely the most broken conception o’ economics.

But can we blame economists? What are they s’posed to make o’ such a paradox? After all, we can’t just ignore competition; however paradoxical it may be, it’s very much real, hypocrisies & all. How do we deal with this irreconcilable conflict ’tween idealism—either creating an impossible perfect competition or eliminating competition entirely—& reality with its shitty version o’ competition?

As said in The Jungle, what should we fight for: something we want & can’t have or something we can have & don’t want?

Footnotes

In our dystopian present, where North-Korea-style economics is the norm & newspapers like Forbes have to be distributed underground to keep from being crushed by the eye o’ the Socialist Sauron that is our current World Government, a business shill @ Forbes whose last name is 1 letter ’way from “salesman” pleads, “Wherefore art thou true capitalists?”

It’s clear that either Salsman must be 1 o’ those enviable breed that can say the equivalent o’ “The sky is green” with a straight face or he is even mo’ delusional than I am. Where do I start with this MRA for the rich?

Despite many leftists admitting that capitalism was the victor after the fall o’ the Berlin Wall—which is unsurprising, since leftists love to talk ’bout what victims they are—they forget that our present economy is similar to those s’posedly-fallen socialist economies.

So… Then capitalism wasn’t the victor, after all. Socialism was. He basically says, “The fall o’ the Berlin Wall proved that capitalist countries are the best ’cause the capitalist countries were the 1s that didn’t collapse, even though they’re not truly capitalist, but socialist.” But if, in your own words, capitalism doesn’t truly exist anywhere—they’re all infected with that evil socialism—then capitalism is truly the failure.

What are you trying to argue? That we should feel triumph ’cause we crushed those socialists but feel bad ’cause we’re being crushed by those socialists? You have to pick 1. You can’t be both the winner & the loser @ the same time, dumbshit.

To be fair, there is some truth to capitalist countries being like “socialist”; but this development is hardly new, has been a part o’ capitalism since it’s inception, & is what I would mo’ accurately call “economics in general” than “socialism.” You’re right, Salsman: government intervention in a system run by the government is crazy! Next thing you know, we’ll have police use violent force gainst what the government calls “theft” in opposition to their own totalitarian specification o’ who owns what.

What fantasy eon do people imagine when they talk ’bout this “free” capitalism that must be contrasted with the vile corrupt, government-infested version that has always existed? Colonial times, when General Washington used military force to crush agricultural workers who rose up gainst “rule by a faraway elite, cronyism and corruption at influential levels of government, and regressive tax policy”? Was it during the Gilded Age o’ so-called self-made capitalists, when the country-spanning railroads were funded primarily by government hand-outs? Or was it the “Golden Age o’ Capitalism”—truly the Golden Age o’ Keynesian Welfare Capitalism.

No. Salsman provides no history, no evidence, no nothing for his diatribe. He does what all political narcissists do: he throws his fists down & calls everything he hates “fascist”—or “socialist,” which in this context is the same: “evil”—& demands everyone do everything exactly as he wants now or else! He wants to feel great ’cause he’s a winner & feel great ’cause he’s a poor li’l victim who should get so much sympathy. He & his capitalist buddies are spoiled brats who need to get over themselves.

I want to emphasize that “MRAs for the rich” point, ’cause he truly depicts rich people as the true victims o’ the US, including some weepy article by The Economist, which argues that rich people apparently have to hide for fear that the majority o’ Marxists that Americans surely are will shove a pitchfork into their bellies. There are many lower-class people that are now homeless due to the economic collapse caused by a few corrupt capitalists literally breaking the law & committing fraud—even those lower-class people who had nothing to do with housing, merely losing their job due to the ripple effect. But they live like kings compared to our pitiful rich who deserve all o’ your pity—or a’least those lower-class people deserve their worsened conditions, unlike the rich… ’cause we say so.

This is bewildering. See, dirty anarcho-commies can get ’way with playing the empathy card, ’cause they believe everyone is special & that we should all get ’long. When one believes that “rational self-interest” is the “one moral code” to rule them all, then whining ’bout other people not feeling sorry for you makes you look like a blubbering hypocrite. Tell those capitalists to quit bitching, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, & step-up their hiding skills. The fear o’ being mauled to death by mobs is only the market putting pressure on capitalists to hide better, which will lead them to do so, creating mo’ efficiency in the hiding industry. Think o’ how many jobs we can create through these new industries that focus on helping capitalists hide from angry mobs. Have you no entrepreneurial imagination, Forbes?

This is added with a dose o’ “No True Scotsman” fallacy in regards to the purported fans o’ capitalism:

Not even today’s Tea Party movement seems committed to capitalism in any deep sense.

“I say so, therefore it’s true. I don’t even need to ’splain what I mean by ’any deep sense,’ much less try to prove this terribly humble claim.”

To be fair, it is surprising, this lack o’ ardent support for a philosophy that upholds selfishness… well, ’cept when one selfishly supports government force when it benefits one. Scratch that: this lack o’ ardent support for a philosophy that upholds individualism… ’cept when one complains ’bout how one needs to network so much to succeed in capitalism, which is just a ’scuse for them to attack capitalism’s true philosophy, which is freedom… ’cept for that whole need for government to protect property…

Hmm…

Maybe the reason nobody ardently stands for capitalist principles is that capitalism doesn’t hold any consistent principles.

Salsman seems to interpret “egoism”—a pretentious term for ’selfishness’ that better hides its practitioner’s true mindless narcissism—but seems to expect a lack o’ selfishness when it comes to capitalists such as Buffet & Gates supporting government subsidies that benefit them, which Salsman bemoans. Maybe Salsman should stop being jealous o’ such successful businesses, pull himself up by his bootstraps, & get better @ networking with the government—that’s clearly what the market argues is the superior path to success.

He goes on to misinterpret what are clearly the US’s 4 foremost economists: Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, Friedrich Hayek, & Barack Obama.

He whines that Marx apparently agrees that capitalism is efficient, & yet still mysteriously criticizes it simply ’cause it’s mean ol’ selfish efficiency. I’m amazed Salsman could be so ignorant o’ Marxism in a way that even Misesians aren’t. Everyone knows that Marx famously—wrongly—argued that capitalism would collapse, ’twas such a wreck o’ a system. You’re right: he totally thought capitalism was practical!

He shows this by showing how Marx preferred capitalism to its predecessors, forgetting to mention that socialism wasn’t ’mong those predecessors. To be fair, it is surprising that a man who practically jerked off to modernity would hate older economic systems.

O, wait, he does acknowledge this in the next paragraph, only to interpret it as “Capitalism will fail ’cause it’s evil.” That’s not an exaggeration: Salsman literally puts “Capitalism must ’fail’ because it is ’evil’” in Marx’s mouth. You know, 1 thing that annoys me ’bout procapitalist propagandists is that they’re terrible @ it. C’mon: was that truly the best strawmanning you could do?

Salsman’s criticism o’ Keynes is nothing but Godwin’s Law. He honest-to-god proves that Keynes’s criticism o’ capitalism is bad ’cause Keynes praised Hitler once (since we know that no capitalist economist ever did¹). Forbes’s writing standards are so low they couldn’t pass a high-school logic class. Why do you rich people keep trying to validate all o’ these mean people’s hatred o’ capitalism by acting like such morons? Does money have chemicals in it that cause brain damage—must be put there by the evil Fed, I bet!

I want to emphasize that this silly blog post written by some bum using mainly Wikipedia links as citations has mo’ academic quality than an article posted on Forbes. If that doesn’t make Forbes feel embarrassed, they must have no shame (they don’t; capitalists never do). C’mon, my 6-year-ol’ nephew could point @ that argument & go, “That’s stupid.” I would be physically incapable o’ writing something like that, it’s so obviously stupid!

(Sadly, this isn’t the worst argument Forbes has used gainst Keynes; ’nother spewed some pseudopsychiatric bullshit to argue that Keynes’s homosexuality ruined economics forever. Forbes is truly the bastion for classical liberalism².)

Salsman’s shameless lack o’ honesty continues when he describes Hayek:

In The Road to Serfdom (1944), where he warned, correctly, that the seemingly benign welfare state can lead to a totalitarian [emphasis mine].

When has this ever proven to be correct? Name 1 welfare-capitalist country that has ever turned into Leninism. Name 1 Leninist country whose origin wasn’t from violent revolution & came from parliamentary social democracy. Remember when Western Europe became totalitarian Leninist dystopias under those vile labor parties?

No? No evidence Salsman? Not 1?

Shocking. You’ve shown yourself to be so intellectually honest, so inscrutable before. I’ll tell you what: I’ll give you the benefit o’ the doubt. Maybe you thought 1984 was a documentary ’bout the UK.

Anyway, he whines that even Hayek doesn’t take seriously the moral quality o’ narcissism; but, ’course, as already demonstrated, neither does Salsman, considering his whines gainst Gates & Buffet selfishly benefiting from government intervention. Capitalism isn’t even based on self-interest or “individualist ethic,” as it demands people throw ’way personal gains through government intervention for the—purportedly—collective benefit o’ superior efficiency. & you’d think anyone trying to form a business—a capitalist collective, essentially—writing for a newspaper the collects procapitalist writers together would realize the absurdity o’ praising capitalism for serving “individualist ethics.”

If Salsman were truly an individualist, he wouldn’t be trying to build his career on digging into capitalists’ pants but by living in the wild, growing all his own food. ’Course, if he did that, he’d likely die; hence why individualism never succeeds & why all o’ the most powerful organizations in the world—including the US & multinational corporations—are immensely collectivist.

But then, maybe it’s all that socialism that causes businesses & Forbes to exist. I’m sure when the capitalist revolution happens—it’s coming any minute now! The socialists are as we speak burying the seeds to their own demise!—businesses will whither ’way & we’ll finally have a Robinson Crusoe in every human!

Last, he criticizes a politician’s propaganda blurbs probably shat out by some speech writer in a minute as futilely as I do for him. Obama may love capitalism, but he doesn’t love it for the right reason—the reason that has never succeeded ever in history. You’re right: how absurd o’ him. Fuck destitute hell holes like Sweden; give me… I can’t even think o’ an example, ’cause Salsman refuses to specify which practical application o’ which arbitrary version o’ capitalism that he supports. Somalia when ’twas “anarchist”?—or rather, Americans’ ignorant perception o’ what “anarchism” is. Pinochetian Chile? The Gilded Age? Well, it can’t be then, ’cause there was that aforementioned socialistic railroad-building existed.

How tragic that this purportedly practical economic system has no actual practical application in history—nothing but evil socialism, whether the practical Western versions or the failing Leninist versions.

& it’s sad that someone who brags ’bout capitalism’s practicality has no practical knowledge himself. Perhaps it’s less that every other purported procapitalist is a shitty procapitalist & mo’ that Salsman is & that the so-called shitty procapitalists understand that capitalism’s practicality comes from its lack o’ consistent principles—that government intervention strengthens capitalism rather than weakening it.

’Course, he isn’t practical-minded, so he obviously doesn’t understand why something could be practical. He’s simply regurgitating American propaganda without understanding the purpose for propaganda: tricking idiots into thinking their dominant ideology is great in every way, even if they’re contradictory. Hence why capitalism is both free, but not too free as to let homeless savages trespass on property; hence why capitalism is both individualist, but not too individualist as to eliminate bureaucratic corporations: “Whatever gets you dolts to let me keep my riches—defend it ardently, even—I don’t give a shit what you idiots want to believe.” I bet Salsman will also write an article on how awesome Washington was for not lying ’bout cutting down that cherry tree or ’bout good ol’ Betsy Ross, who received the design for the American flag straight from American Jesus.

Unless rational self-interest is understood as the one moral code consistent with genuine humanity, and the moral estimate of capitalism thus improves, socialism will keep making comebacks, despite its deep and dark record of human misery.

Considering it’s purported proponent doesn’t even understand it, we must be in trouble then.

Addendum:

Also, fuck Forbes for splitting the article into 2 pages ’tween when I 1st wrote this & when I was finishing the final draft. Stop doing that, you idiots: it only makes it a pain in the ass to find specific parts o’ an article & makes me wade through mo’ o’ Forbes’s dumbass thoughts o’ the day.

---

Footnotes

I’ve begun to feel bad ’bout my article mocking moderate liberals for their recent election failures, not ’cause I mocked moderate liberals—that part I still stand by—but ’cause I mocked some article wherein Noah Smith praises mainstream economists for, by his own account, fucking up the economy by being corrupt liars. Looking back, I should’ve taken this as subtle sarcasm, since clearly no one who is an assistant professor @ a prestigious college—if your college doesn’t just hand out coupons for digital cameras for diplomas, I consider it prestigious—could write this article unironically…

Right…?

This article is not from his usual den o’ faux-nerdy obnoxiousness, but @ the den o’ the pasty-faced known as Bloomberg. Said article has a not-@-all-arrogant title that seems to imply Smith’s humble goal o’ being the the world’s ultimate arbiter on who deserves what. Since “free” market economists supporting economic authoritarianism is the rule mo’ than the exception, that’s not the odd part; no, the fun part must be built up like fresh pancakes…

1st we start with some fun strawmanning:

There’s a common myth that standard economics predicts that people are paid an amount of money equal to the value of the things they produce. Actually, this isn’t true – in fact, the idea doesn’t even make sense.

It’s a good thing this common myth was 1 you made up, then. Most critics assume economists assume that workers get paid based on the value they give, since that is what a logical society would do—though as we shall see, Smith doesn’t think our current economy does. I don’t know any leftist who assumes workers are all just independents who do everything themselves. In fact, that sounds mo’ like a laisez-faire fantasy, if anything. Would be awfully difficult for the evil capitalists to exploit them if said capitalists didn’t actually exist.

In standard economics […] you get paid an amount equal to the amount that the company’s production increases when it hires you.

Which employers surely know, since every business comes with a special “value-creation” meter that can predict just how much value a worker will create before that worker actually does anything. This proves that labor has nothing to do with value-creation, as those scurvy-dog Marxists claim, since they don’t even work to create value: just having their name on the business’s employee list is ’nough to inspire the computers that actually do all o’ the work to feel mo’ confident & to work harder.

People generally don’t produce things individually. They produce things together, with the assistance of capital such as machines and buildings.

It’s ’bout time someone finally told market-critics this. As we all know, leftist critics o’ mainstream economics routinely view the economy as nothing mo’ than independent individuals in some Robinson Crusoe world, nor do they ever acknowledge capital’s involvement in the economy. That’s why Marx’s most famous work was called Das Kapital—’cause as the 1st sentence will tell you, “Das Kapital ist eine bürgerliche Lüge.”

So when a company hires you, its marginal productivity changes, because your presence affects the marginal productivity of everyone else at the company.

I just imagine Smith snickering as he typed this. It’s true, too: a common thought that pops into workers’ heads is, Man, if only I had some guy standing near me, his warm breath streaming down my neck, I’d work so much harder! This empty space is just so distracting!

In other words, in a competitive, classical economy…

O, good, we can just stop here, since we’re not in that kind o’ economy, so its dependent variables can be safely ignored.

Market economists always do that shit, too. They’re like those too-good-to-be-true ads that get you hyped, only for the microscopic print to admit, “only applies to competitive economies,” when “competitive capitalism” is right up there with “benign dictator” or “communism that hasn’t utterly fucking failed” as 1 o’ those elusive concepts that’s s’posed to distinguish it from the evil versions that have actually ever existed in reality.

He brings up this chart that shows that worker productivity & wages generally matched during the mid-20th Century, also commonly known as the “Golden Age” o’ capitalism.

All right. Then he goes into a perfectly normal description o’ how average & marginal productivity differ ’cause… wait, what?

No economic model says that people get paid based on average productivity. If they did, there would be no income left over for capital — no profits, rents or interest. We’d be living in a sort of a [sic] Marxist world, where labor is the only thing with any value.

OK, now go back & look @ that graph he just brought up ’gain—the 1 where average productivity & what people were paid matched so closely.

We must credit Professor Noah Smith, for revealing the government myth o’ the “Golden Age” o’ capitalism to truly be the vile Golden Age o’ Marxism! So that’s how we won the Cold War. Well, like they say: fight fire with fire. I just wish our wise ol’ conservatives would teach these young punks & their radical “free” markets how much better things were in the good ol’ red-blooded American 50s, when everything was swell; teenage women didn’t get pregnant all the time;—or a’least we pretend they didn’t—black people were still kept in fea… O, wait, we still do that; & we all held hands & chanted “This Land is My Land” before statues o’ Marx & Engels.

He then makes up some bullshit ’bout how robots & the Chinese are stealing all our jobs, but the latter’s OK, ’cause Chinese workers will ’ventually get bored & find something else to do. God damn it, Smith, are you mixing up reality with your favorite science fiction books? This is just like that microfiction you wrote ’bout the economy wherein every individual’s income distributions are randomized every so oft. You’re not going to be the Twilight Zone for economics, so give it up. For 1, economics itself is already as logical as the Twilight Zone.

Still, I couldn’t agree mo’ with his reverse Yakov Smirnoff joke:

In a globalized capitalist economy, you don’t get paid what you produce – in fact, you don’t produce anything without others to help. What you get paid is what you can convince other people to give you.

So quit bitching & start whoring yourself to your brethren. Shit, as we saw earlier, Smith’s been doing that for a while. Or would you rather live in 1 o’ those collectivist economies like the Soviet Union or 1950s America?

I didn’t think so.

Nevertheless, this point has been proven in a mo’, ahem, scientific—& I must say mo’ eloquent—manner elsewhere.

Other fine work:

• An aptly-titled article, “Reality Might Topple a Beloved Economic Theory.” This apparently “disquiets” him, which is odd, as the many times it’s done so in the past hadn’t seemed to.

• Here Smith rightfully points out how frivolous the Nobel Prize is, since they love giving those peace prizes to war criminals, & ’cause the winners are all fatties who stuff their face with chocolate—no offense to the fatties who stuff their face with peanut butter, ’stead; they’re still cool.

• Here Smith outright acknowledges that he’s a troll, but just an obnoxiously generic 1—what he calls the true oppressed class! Mostly, this is just a ’scuse for him to spew pseudoeconomic nonsense to pretend he’s a special, brilliant snowflake. He is wrong.

  He also seems to think Lolcats & Rickrolling were creative. He is wrong ’gain.

• Here’s a hilarious article that I’ll also take as trolling wherein he argues that Wall-Street people make so much money ’cause they suffer so much. For instance, you may have to tolerate being an asshole & causing other people harm—& nothing’s worse than having someone else inconvenienced. You may even be inconvenienced ’nough to punching your underling! Think o’ how your hand will hurt after hitting that li’l freak’s hard head!

  He also joins with ’nother Bloomberg writer in trying to sucker young people into giving up such lucrative careers in return for their “soul.” After all, “moral purpose can be worth a lot of dollars – just look at the low wages in the nonprofit sector.”

• Here’s an article wherein he creams himself over a sexy cat fight ‘tween Krugman & some smarmy-looking bastard o’ which I’ve never heard. I’m particularly amused by Smith’s insinuation that Krugman has mo’ sweet-ass cred than Stephen Gould & John Maynard Keynes—Krugman, the same economist who claimed that silly fiction stories about imaginary hot dog factories are mo’ important than facts; the same economist who supported many o’ the causes o’ our current economic depression, while now shamelessly, hypocritically pretending to be on the forefront gainst the very economics he suported before–including the same inaccurate deficit & inflation scaremongering for which Smith hypocritically criticizes Austrian-schoolers.

  Actually, Smith later whines ’bout how tragic 2 rich people disagreeing has become & hearfully wishes they’d just get together & put their dicks in each other’s bums already, your flirtatious bickering isn’t fooling anyone, before Smith’s nerves give in to so much conflict & he faints. I’m always amused by the kind o’ things rich people find troubling. Surely you’ve had greater tragedies in your life, right? Like, maybe you had ice cream fall off its cone once–which, judging by this article, caused Smith to spend months ‘lone in his room with the lights off in deep depression (Some o’ us have learned the wise wisdom o’ optimistic advice from such sites as Careerealism & do not let such circumstances dictate our actions, but take the initiative ourselves, & spend months ‘lone in our rooms with the lights off without waiting for ice cream to fall off our cones, thank you).

• Here’s an article wherein he conflates the worst war in human history to conservatives feeling a tad sad ’bout not being able to take out their bitterness on women & gays as much as they used to. This comes with a side order o’ an appeal to gross collusion ‘tween the 2 milquetoast political classes with the kind o’ smugness that conservatives despise liberals for harboring. This “compromise” is essentially everyone thinking the same way Smith does. ‘Course, anyone with the merest o’ political understanding will predict that conservatives, laissez-faire-libertarians (though in Smith’s defense, I don’t think he even tries to compromise with them, which shows that he has some taste), & leftists (who, in fairness, will hate anything, anyway) will tell Smith to fuck off & continue to hate him; but centrists & moderate liberals can get a warm fuzzy feeling o’ smug satisfaction @ their civility.

  That this smug self-congratulation for moderate liberals comes after their utter fucking failure in American legislative branch is even funnier. Yes, keep telling yourselves you’re successful, liberals. Hee, hee, you’re so cute.

• Finally, we have a ludicruous article praising a ludicrous study that “proves” that economists are not ideological by flaunting their political & linguistic ignorance–that is, after a tacky, irrelevant photo o’ some woman holding up scales. Said study is reams o’ arbitrary mathematical postmodernist nonsense meshed with an arbitrary text-searching test that only checks which words are used, not their actual content. So, for instance, if a paper talks ’bout mental illness, it’s apparently left-wing, while if it talks ’bout bank notes or the Federal Reserve, it’s right-wing (p. 14). That this paper seems to only focus on Democrats & Republicans & already makes assumptions o’ what are “neutral” political activities, which they refuse to include in their data, shows not only that the evidence is partly based on the conclusion–not necessarily nonfalsifiable, but certainly absurd–but that this study’s writers are ignorant o’ politics, as well as language (p. 12-13).

  In truth, the methodology & the conclusion o’ the paper ironically demonstrates the very bias economists in general truly have: centrism. The paper focuses purely on Democrats & Republicans, with those who fall between them considered “unbiased”–which ironically relies on the biased view that the Democrats & Republicans are an objective measure for determining the “biased” sides. This is unsurprising, as economists are superstitiously fearful o’ being viewed as “biased,” & thus try to fake nonbias through simply regurgitating the “centrist” mainstream hivemind. This same philosophy affects the writers o’ this very study, leading them to mistake “centrism” as “nonbiased,” when it isn’t. This can clearly be proved by comparing US politics to other countries’ politics & noting that what is “centrist” in the US may be radically different from other countries’ centrism; & thus, in reverse, that those “centrisms” may be “biased” toward the left or right. In essence, this study tests bias by harboring a bias for the US way o’ thinking. If an economist were to think in a way mo’ like ‘nother country’s dominant ideology, that economist would be evilly biased, while an economist who regurgitates US dominant ideology would be “unbiased.”

  But fuck that boring noise: read the comments for that article & feast on… whatever nonsense these people are blubbering ’bout. The great part o’ the insane asylum known as the internet is that it’s impossible to tell which parts are passive-aggressive sarcasm or authentic delusions–can you discern which is which on this very blog?

  In particular, I’m glad Noah Smith linked this brilliant critique o’ New Republic (though I disagree with Prof. deBoer’s callous indifference toward the well-being o’ Stalin’s cat). I would like to see that kind o’ high-quality analysis from you for once, Smith.

• O shit, how could I forget Smith’s laughable attempt @ foreign-policy analysis with his scaremongering ’bout the upcoming World War 3 gainst the vile Chinese.

  A few succulent bits:

  [A]bout 40% of the world has resolutely refused to adopt U.S.-like systems, and democracy has actually been in retreat since slightly after the turn of the millennium, if you believe Freedom House.

  I don’t, tragically ‘nough, since I can’t imagine a political system that’s virtually never existed ever to be in decline. I love how people who lusciously praise America’s “democracy” are so ignorant o’ the US’s actual political philosophy or what “democracy” even is. Even laissez-faire libertarains o’ all people have bothered to actually graduate high school & learn that the US isn’t a democracy, never was 1, is a republic, which keeps the dirty poor from asserting themselves, yadda yadda. This isn’t obscure shit hidden in badly designed websites by anarchists; any high school history textbook mentions this shit. Smith should read basic history for a mere second before spewing propaganda so he actually gets the propaganda right.

  He then spews data & a few caveat points without any analysis o’ how it matters. Mo’ importantly, nowhere does he actually ‘splain why 2 countries with nuclear weapons should go to war with ‘nother country with nuclear weapons, despite the absence o’ such even in the far bitterer Cold War.

  @ the end he admits that this is all bullshit he pulls out his ass, but then he self-fallatingly declares, “But just in case this is where things are headed, it pays to be honest with ourselves about the facts.” I agree: in case o’ events that have no reason to ever occur outside o’ fantasy literature, we must memorize random data in case China demands us all to win a China quiz or else they’ll send their UFOs down & conquer us all like they did in the teevee movies.

  The comments have a variety o’ sentiments–none o’ which are deeply considered, shockingly. The most fitting would have to be Anonymous’s “What kind of bullshit is this?” even if it comes after the unapt praise for Smith’s economic posts; though, admittedly, learning ’bout (laissez-faire) libertarianism being a Jewish conspiracy o’ Marxists must come as a close 2nd.

  There are mo’ scaremongering, too. Clearly, Smith is obsessed with living out his fantasies o’ living in his favorite Tom Clancy thrillers, even if it requires him to pretend that nuclear weapons have never been invented.

I. A Boring Public Service Announcement

My favorite part ’bout a lot o’ “positive” people—not all o’ them, you whiny bastards I imagine might complain if anyone read this dreck—is how they oft use it as a way to mask the fact that they’re oft terrible people. This makes sense: positivity is aesthetically pleasing—to most people, a’least—& thus does a better job o’ hiding any ugliness ’neath.

This is why a lot o’ narcissistic know-it-alls are cynics: they love the challenge o’ being as ugly & provocative as possible; if people still find their arguments compelling under such ugliness, well, they must be truly good arguments. Positivity, meanwhile, is oft used to hide the most banal—& oft revoltingly reactionary, as in Goins’ case I went over in ’nother article—garbage.

Indeed, it shouldn’t be surprising that “positivity” & “reactionary” should be affiliated as they are both based on the evidenceless belief that the status quo is valid & that those who don’t agree with it are just “negative.” Women who complain ’bout sexism are just whiny bitches who need to quit bitching & “lean in”—into the CEO’s dick, amirite? Sweat-shop workers in developing nations need to quit whining & learn to love their life-long gruel. After, all they clearly chose to live that way, since humans can clearly do whatever they want—fuck the complexities o’ reality!

Positivity is also linked quite oft with power, while cynics are universally despised. This is, ’course, ’cause power structures are mo’ powerful when people think ’bout all its good points than its bad. This is why there will always be a seat in bland political talk shows for ditsy morons who just spew ’bout the American Dream & how democratic the US is, despite all o’ the scientific evidence gainst either.

“Positive” Americans try to take credit for the positive aspects o’ attacking power that led to our present status quo, ’course. For instance, Martin Luther King Jr. was “positive” when he attacked blatant racism, which we ’course know is evil now, but the people who criticize deeper racism that exist today or economic issues are just complainers. Never mind the fact that MLK Jr. considered the civil rights movement a failure ’cause it didn’t go far ’nough—’specially in terms o’ economics. Reality isn’t as important as the ability for positive successful people to feel superior to people & the past without having to reevaluate their own situation—to do so would be negative, after all.

II. Be Who I Tell You To Be Or Else 🙂

On the subject o’ revolting “positive” reactionaries is a Lifehacker—what the fuck is that s’posed to mean?—article ’bout the positive topic o’ how cynics are all assholes & should mend their disgusting ways. ’Stead, he literally advocates lying so that you fit in—which shows that the shallowness o’ Klosowski’s philosophy matches the shallowness o’ his writing.

To be fair, one can’t go wrong with introspection—lord knows, Americans could use some self-awareness for once—to examine how one’s behavior affects others & a way to balance that with one’s own emotional concerns, which may include counseling.

’Course, Klosowski doesn’t advocate that or even consider the option, since he probably can’t even comprehend the idea o’ someone pondering a subject for longer than the average simple point-by-point slideshow that all o’ these articles try emulating.

’Stead, you should just adjust your personality to how he wants it; & if that causes conflict with your friends or family, well, good: they’re not good friends, anyway. See, where I come from, this is called a “cult.”

Only later, after bashing cynics for paragraphs, does he turn round & admit the strengths o’ cynics & flaws o’ optimists. Well, then why didn’t you call this article “Balancing Positivity & Negativity”? Would’ve saved me the time o’ typing this shit—time that could’ve been spent doing nothing but bashing other people’s work ’cause I secretly want to be them, please be my best friend, sniff.

God damn it, the only times centrism is ever logical is when nobody’s ever centrist yet ’gain.

I started with the balanced point. (I said that not all positive people are bad ’fore proceeding to bash positive people; that’s balanced.) ’Cause I’m better.

Also, it’s funner to lure the optimists in with candy ’fore dumping my waste bin right onto their faces.

III. Cynics Are Shitty Artists

’Nother article peddles some pseudoscientific test ’bout problem-solving & uses that to argue that creativity & positivity are purportedly linked—’cause Pinola apparently knows nothing ’bout creativity.

Why is it that all o’ these positivity lovers also love such obvious shams? Yeah, a website called “Positive Ratio” that promises that “Positivity shows you how to tap into your hidden emotional potential to achieve a flourishing life” sounds truly credible. I’d totally cite that in my college papers. Here’s a tip, dipshit: if a website claims to guarantee a “flourishing life,” it’s a scam; elsewise, we’d have solved world hunger by now.

To be fair, she has a point: cynics have never created good art, ever. Think o’ how much better Nirvana’s music would’ve been if Cobain thought positively for once. & “Waste Lands.” (Sigh.) I don’t see why T. S. Eliot couldn’t have been constructive for once & not mire in such worthless bleakness.

& don’t get me started on Jonathan Swift, who only ever had mean things to say ’bout everything. Maybe ’stead o’ making all o’ those snarky attacks gainst the British government, whom I’m sure were doing the best they could for the starving Irish, he could’ve looked @ the positive aspects—how such mistakes made us stronger!

IV. Treat Cynicism Like the Plague

I also love how much “positive” advice tells you to stay ’way from unpositive people. Hey, is someone withdrawn ’cause their mother’s dead or something? Stay ’way from that dead weight! Don’t want the cool kids @ the capitalist table not to let us join their clique.

How ’bout I avoid “positive” people, ’stead. They sound like privileged, bigoted assholes.

This is probably frivolous—but then, isn’t everything I write?—but I wanted to make ’nother quick post on Mankiw & my grotesque fascination with his rhetorical philosophy, which I think shows the general counterintuitive philosophy o’ centrists: that one becomes smarter when one thinks as li’l as possible.

In an admittedly-rather-ol’ post, Mankiw uses the same patronizing moderate frown he used in the last article I mocked when discussing some hippie @ Ad Busters making fun o’ Mankiw for be a mindless Squealer for economists. Mankiw’s response is… “Yes, that’s exactly what I am.”

When I teach introductory economics, either in the classroom or in my textbook, I view myself as an ambassador for the economics profession. I try to represent the economic mainstream, not my personal political views. Some students may view the economic mainstream as right of center. That assessment is probably correct, at least as judged by the universe of college professors. But the job of an introductory course is to present, as honestly as possible, the consensus of the profession.

Thus, Mankiw’s defense is literally, “If the majority o’ economists say so, it must be right.”

I also love how before that he makes the same simplified story that centrist economists always make ’bout how the right is mean to them, too—O, who is mo’ assailed than mainstream economists? Why aren’t they given reparations already?—& then says, “I suppose the symmetry in the attacks suggests I am getting things about right.”

Reading this quote—as well as the rest o’ the article—notice what Mankiw neglects to do—what he neglects to do in most o’ his work? He neglects to make an actual logical point. Nowhere in his work do I ever see rational arguments. His defenses gainst cries o’ political bias are nothing mo’ than saying that, well, his political bias is the correct 1, which is the center—the US’s dominant ideology. How ironic that centrists like Mankiw can only ever criticize such “extreme” “ideologues” through ideological language, such as criticizing work purely for being “leftist” or “right-wing” or focusing purely on where ideas stand on some imaginary “left-right” spectrum. This is unsurprising coming from a study that takes pride in focusing purely on abstract—i.e. made up in people’s minds—matters, rather than concrete matters.

That the center could be just as ignorant & biased as the left or right eludes Mankiw completely. Never mind the fact that the center has, in the past, included such reasonable arguments that black people & women were inferior, as it includes such reasonable arguments that poor people are inferior today. Those centrists were ’course wrong; but we’re not, ’cause society has clearly learned all that we need. That American centrism is significantly different from the centrism in many other countries is also irrelevant. Those centrists are ’course silly extremists; but we’re not, ’cause… the answer always eludes.

What this tells me is not, as centrists like Mankiw clearly want me to think, that they are just ’bove such vulgarities as political opinions, but that they are just intellectual cowards who are ’fraid to confront their political biases—probably ’cause they’re not confident in their intellectual abilities to ensure that these are biases are logically defensible, ’cause they probably know deep down that what they want & get contradict what a logical ethical system should give them.

Otherwise, a Harvard economist like Mankiw may question, as the Anti-Mankiw article he linked, why his tenure is so great & why he derives so much influence for then-Presidents like George W. Bush when he can’t even ’splain his beliefs without freshmen-level logical fallacies such as “appeal to popularity” or the “golden mean.”

That, or Mankiw may just be a shameless lawyer who spews out rhetoric in the hopes o’ distracting people from the rational fact that he takes in phat loot for spewing propaganda beneficial to powerful classes—which is not just corporations! As any centrist economist will tell you, they also stands for such left-wing, Keynesian ideals as supporting underdogs like the government, too! After all, without government, who will jail the dirty hobos when they perturb white middle-class sensibilities when asking for dimes?

Addendum

In the spirit o’ smugfaced centrism, can I take a second to laugh @ the fact that a leftist organization would call themselves “post-autism economics.” As you can see, the prissy left still hasn’t left their PC fascism. If this were a true-blue conservative organization, you know they would get right to the heart o’ language & call themselves “economics for people who aren’t fucking social retards who might also be Jews I’m not sure yet though if you figure out the secrets o’ the Corporatist Marxist Jew Cabal please tell me ’K thank you.”

Mankiw, as any good-sporting centrist, is “intrigued” by this movement, which is good to hear. As any sensible person will tell you, you must always look @ both sides in every conflict:—there are never mo’ than 2 sides, that’s just too crazy to even consider!—both the bigoted & the nonbigoted.

Actually, we shouldn’t be surprised, since we’re talking ’bout economics, & anyone faintly interested in economics is probably halfway toward becoming a desensitized sociopath. This even includes those who treat economics purely as bile fuel,—an environmentally-friendly energy source, you hippies should appreciate—as anyone reading anything else I’ve written here should have gleaned.

It’s sad that after Goins’ bold salute to mediocre writing, he’s now¹ changed his mind, calling “jack-o-all-trades” morons who like sports.

Ironically, he’s talking ’bout writing; but writing is 1 o’ the few industries where having well-rounded skills is a boon—a’least for fiction writers. Fiction-writing involves creating believable worlds, which are usually inspired by, even if not based on, the real world. Knowledge o’ the real world can involve knowledge in everything. Want to write a good biologist & truly understand their point o’ view? Researching biology will help. & yes, though sports don’t interest me, even I acknowledge that knowledge o’ sports would benefit someone writing a sports story.

Contrariwise, no one will ever be a master @ writing, since one can always improve—though perhaps that applies to everything.

But then, I don’t think this article was meant as a serious philosophical question—for 1, “serious” & “philosophical” never go together. ’Stead it’s meant to congratulate himself for being “nerdy” & “alternative,” man. Everyone says this ’bout themselves—even people who were bullies; it’s just that everyone likes to think o’ themselves as victims who succeeded gainst unbelievable odds, rather than honestly acknowledging that we all succeed ’cause we weren’t born in a place where children are forced to fight for their survival gainst rabid tigers (’less you were, reader, in which case you admittedly probably did earn your success gainst unbelievable odds & you may ignore this critique).

I listened to Led Zeppelin and wore baggy T-shirts. I was not cool, and I paid the price for it in social capital. That awkward feeling of being left out lingers with me even today. Because I still do things that make me weird.

He must’ve grown up in the 50s when not following a carefully-orchestrated set o’ instructions for walking down a hall got you labeled an insane commie. See, in my school days, being “weird” was considered cool—& by weird I mean the definition he uses: not authentically gross to society, like a man wearing skirts & makeup or having a massive facial deformation for life, but liking a famous band & wearing imperfectly-pressed clothing. Harmless weird: the kind o’ weird that feeds the feeling o’ rebellion but without actually having the immense social pressures that warrant that feeling. All I hear ’bout is how awesome being a nerd is, since it fits the pattern perfectly, even if their only criteria is that they push buttons on a hunk o’ plastic plugged into a TV every once in a while.

This is all used to regurgitate the same myth o’ the genius loser who becomes rich—where I come from, if you’re not living every second in cold-sweat fear o’ frostbite from wandering the subarctic urban wilderness in homelessness, you’re rich, so I’m going to assume Goins is rich—due to their genius loserness. This despite the fact that social skills are the most useful skill for success & the reality that most powerful people are actually morons. Have you ever listened to a business executive or politician open his—usually his—mouth? Those are the geniuses who rule the world?

The irony is that the world’s true losers probably aren’t the 1s sitting round measuring their victim dicks—probably ’cause they’re actually victims, & thus too busy running from the totalitarian government snatchers hunting them down & can’t type ’cause their hands have been chopped off & had arthritis, anyway. Also they have cancer, but that hasn’t impeded them from blogging yet.

Life is not an accident for these people [“people who matter,” as opposed to those who should just kill their shitty selves]; they are living intentionally.

You hear that victims o’ that tsunami? Stop letting accidents rule your lives, already! ’Course, many o’ these people don’t have lives anymore, so we can see that Goins’ philosophy has turned true!

This is the cost of greatness. (And I’m learning to embrace it.)

Ha, ha, ha! What a cocksucker.

I also love the book he quotes that uses “you” to contrast those other “fools,” the intended audience obviously intended to feel the author’s hand reach out into their pants. “O yes! O yeah! Please tell me I’m special mo’. O yeah… That’s so goood.”

[Paragraphs that can be summarized as, “Having capabilities that deserve praise for being based on effort require actual effort, dumb ass.”]

I’m glad that he feels the need to tell me this. I’m sure there are plenty o’ people who somehow missed the billion other inspirational puke smacking their foreheads & going, “You mean sitting on my couch & scratching my dick doesn’t get me rich?” ’Course, as we gleaned earlier, this article isn’t aimed @ those people. You’re obviously not 1 o’ them. No, he’s talking ’bout the bad, lazy people—the poor slobs, the dirty people. Essentially, he’s talking ’bout social stereotypes—ironically attacking the very misfits o’ which he only pretends to be. It’s the same reactionary bizarro world regurgitated a million times: us poor rich geniuses are being pulled down by the immensely powerful lazy bums!

You will be tempted to resign and give in to the taunts of your enemies and critics.

Yes, lets shake our fists @ the mean ol’ critics. They aren’t artists after all, who put work into their satire as much as other writers. No, only those who don’t satire artists—the very class that coincidentally always makes this point—can be considered artists. Artists, after all, are very sensitive, unlike those lazy bums who scratch their groins & treat their radioactive poisoning as an accident.

How many enemies do writers earn? Maybe if these writers are revolutionaries actively trying to topple governments. But is some dork who scribbles inspirational “lit fics” ’bout dogs with cancer—I don’t know if Goins writes these; he could write sci-fi parodies for all I know—truly going to rile up someone ’nough to make them call for their blood & want to wear their skin as a suit?

I mean, I always felt that way ’bout my favorite authors, but that was out o’ love, not ’cause we’re enemies. Why can’t you understand basic empathy, Goins, you sociopath?

Your hands will crack and bleed, your back will hurt, and you will cry.

Well, a’least I got this part right. Though I didn’t even know this had anything to do with me writing; I never even thought ’bout why ’twas so fun.

In all of this, you will be humbled and humiliated…

I’ve noticed that those who praise humility rarely exhibit it themselves, & this includes Goins, who just earlier admitted his love for the cost o’ his greatness. This is probably ’cause humble people quickly learn that in a cut-throat competitive world, admitting that others are better is ’bout as effective as a mouse lying right before a cat. ’Course, the hunt also involves headology & thus pretending to be humble is a great way to lure your victims into a false feeling o’ safety so the pounce will be mo’ successful.

What I’m saying is, Goins wants to eat people, though you shouldn’t be surprised to find such behavior in the kind o’ maniac who listens to Led Zeppelin o’ all things.

Understand what you’ll have to give up, how you’ll be misunderstood, and the loneliness associated with any kind of greatness or leadership.

Yes, people who control others are the true victims o’ society. For instance, I always remember whenever I see some poor Yemenese person whose name will never be remembered by anyone be blown into bloody bones & ashes from a drone dropped on her, a tear ran down the President’s cheek as he pondered the loneliness deep in his heart from all o’ the people who don’t understand him, man. Then he writes shitty beat poetry & that sympathy all goes ’way.

See, I must confess my philosophical difference: if I were to compare leaders & “great”—successful—people to, say, mentally-aberrant homeless bums, I’d say the latter is probably a tad bit lonelier. Granted, the former is probably only having his—usually his, let’s be honest here—dick stroked so his “greatness”—his power—will rub off on them.

In fact, I’d wager that a society where people think only ’bout how they can be masters over other people & how the spirit o’ the bullies from their past still block their paths with said spirits’ evil mediocrity might be a quite lonely place to live no matter who you are. I’m sure Goins would disagree; but then, he’s surely part o’ the conspiracy gainst me, which is why all o’ my fan fiction are rejected by those corporate fascists @ Penguin, just as those corporate fascists in high school called my stories submitted to the papers gay—they were bisexual, you ditzy Cises!

For me, it’s been writing — pursuing how to do something as best I can (and giving up a lot of other pursuits in the process).

You know, I take back everything I said before—well, ’cept for the part ’bout me liking to wear my favorite writers’ skin like a suit. Consider this line & then look back & consider the quality o’ work he’s crafted. I change my tune: Goins, you now have my heartfelt sympathy.

The irony in all of this is that in my disdain for sports I’m actually learning what it means to be an athlete — what it means to strive and strain and push through the pain to achieve a goal.

[There was a pause here while I jabbed a fist into my maw to stifle the loud guffaws. Well, that & ’cause I like the taste o’ my flesh.]

I, too, grit my teeth when I feel the gravelly pain stump into my fingers from the billion keyboard taps! ’Course, this isn’t from my writing, but from my simple joy o’ slamming my fingers gainst hard objects. But still!

If the idea of hustling like you’ve never hustled and hurting like you’ve never hurt before actually appeals to you, then there’s hope.

Then I guess there’s no hope, ’cause that phrase sounds terribly written. When I think o’ “hustling,” I don’t think “work”; I think shitty dancing.

Even worse, you probably stole that line from a Poison song.

As for me, I’m tired of being good at many things, of being a jack-of-all-trades. I want to be a master of one.

I’m always awed by the narcissism o’ Americans that lead every 1 o’ them to believe that they’ll be the master o’ something. It’d be refreshing to see 1 who actually does the math & realizes that the net # o’ masters is far lower than the net # o’ not-even-jacks-o’-all-trades & acknowledge they’ll probably end up a superfluous office drone—or worse, on the run from drones dropped by totalitarian government snatchers.

Do you admit that you’re a superfluous office drone/insane bum on the run from drones dropped by totalitarian government snatchers & that you’re a sick fuck who smashes your fingers gainst hard objects? Share in the comments.

After the Democrats were utterly crushed by the Republicans in congress, the senate, & governors seats, the web was full o’ liberal articles trying not to outright lie ’bout how they failed—something that conservatives would surely have no problem with doing if the positions were reversed—but not hinting that this may mean they could be failures, a writing genre that causes much joy for conservatives & bitter anarchists who hate everyone ’cept other bitter anarchists, probably ’cause it helps both groups repress the sheer horror that is our existence without giving our eyeballs to buy alcohol.

Sadly for our entertainment, the Daily Kos wrote ’bout the issue with cynical honesty—as they are wont to do—including well-earned resentment gainst the American public, hilariously pathetic—& yet also awesome, somehow—passive-aggression gainst the Republicans through the revolutionary threat o’ parliamentary gridlock, & depressed acceptance that they will only ever succeed half the time. Apparently nobody told Kos that that’s glorious socialism he’s talking ’bout: power isn’t held completely by 1 tiny club o’ rich elites but is shared by 2 o’ them. Meanwhile, grumpy reactionary Kos wants to take ’way the Republicans “Everyone Wins Sometimes Trophy,” & as a spineless liberal, I don’t approve o’ this white-&-black morality. Can’t we afford any true colors for once? Like purple or magenta or Granny Smith Apple?

The New York Times gave us a balance ’tween some guy rightfully calling Obama an inconsistent hypocrite after spewing some poetic nonsense ’bout the fun o’ standing round for hours so one can write on paper, as opposed to the evils o’ not writing on paper; some robot spewing mindless Republican propaganda without even trying to ’splain his rationale; & the typical whining ’bout negativity & how we should all hold hands, cry, & stick dicks & dildos in each others bums (I prefer to stick dicks in bums without the crying, thank you).

Paul Krugman hasn’t seemed to post anything on his blog yet, so I’ll assume he drowned himself in cheap whiskey.

I checked the Washington Post, but their shit was boring, so fuck them.

Noah Smith doesn’t mention the election; but I just want to point out this grossly incestuous article wherein he handjobs ’nother economist handjobbing economists—the very job he happens to be a part o’, coincidentally ’nough!—for being “priests of the free [sic] market” & tricking Americans into accepting an economic system, even if they lied ’bout its shitty points for propagandist purposes. This is all very true, & we should, indeed, admire economists in their brilliant trickery. Good job, economists!

But don’t worry: Smith also has hope that these same economists will fix the fuck-ups that they caused. The important point is that economists can never fail, ’cause failures are simply opportunities for future success!

Anarchist Writers didn’t write ’bout the election ’cause they’re too cool for it, even if their website looks like somebody just puked its elements straight onto the screen without further arrangement.

Zombie Marx, surprisingly, shows excitement for the Republican victory, primarily ’cause it meant “Death to Slavery” for him, though I don’t know if I should take someone who still uses the word “Negro”—with a capital, the dirty capitalist—to refer to black people as an expert in racial issues.

Admittedly, Marx may truly be excited simply ’cause 1 o’ his socialist mind servants is the Republican foreign minister, which he will surely use to conquer the US from the inside.

I refused to read any o’ The Atlantic’s articles ’cause the style o’ just the titles & sentence-long blurbs made me want to vomit. Also, 1 o’ their “headlines” is just the same “Writers, don’t stop writing, even if you don’t want to, you lazy shits” cliché every writing “guide” under the moon has spewed.

Nobody cares what The Guardian says ’cause they’re dirty Brits, you don’t own us anymo’!

O, all right, I’ll mention 1 article—just 1!—wherein they argued that conservatives won with a mix o’ aiming attention @ how shitty Obama is, hiding the fact that they’re conservatives, & aiming for the majority o’ Americans’ focus on the pettiest o’ nonissues. You can’t fault a good strategy.

Meanwhile, The Nation vacillates ’tween denialist exclamations o’ some puny victories liberals scrounged in the bloodbath—the blood wasn’t the Democrats’, ’course, who still live in luxury, but o’ Yemenese still being droned to death—& whines ’bout how the Republicans cheated, anyway, so there. Strangely, these arguments that the election is rigged in favor o’ the rich—which are, indeed, mo’ likely to be true than not¹—doesn’t stop liberals from emphasizing the importance o’ voting in this rigged election. My response would be less, “Man, this bites,” & mo’, “O my god, I just realized that the United States is a tyrannical oligarchy! We’re fucked!”

So you all understand how much better I am than all o’ these people I make fun o’ without being deigned to receive a response, I want you all to know that I consider the election rigged & invalid when both o’ the Republicans & Democrats win. Everyone knows that the only valid elections are those in which the Englesist Magical Socialism party wins².

The response will likely be the same as has always been: we must work harder to vote Democrat next election in the hopes that this time they won’t lose &/or won’t suck, I can feel it this time. Granted, what else can you do—other than bitch ’bout it during lunch break, which has already been working wonderfully.

I mean, ’course we can always just overthrow the government, blow up the white house, or call government officials mean words that make centrists cry—& making centrists cry is enjoyable—but then you know ’nother’s just going to pop up, & that gets tiring after a while. They’re like those tax-evading churches in SimCity 2000.

Which brings me to the true tragedy o’ this Republican victory: that it came without a victory by Herman Cain & his amazing 9-9-9 tax plan, as well as his mo’ obscure law mandating that “Virtual Village” play whenever a park is built.

Do you think the government’s like those tax-evading churches in SimCity 2000 & never go ’way or do you think the Englesist Magical Socialist revolution will succeed & finally end all poverty, sadness, & that groggy feeling you get after sleeping late into afternoon? Well, fuck off: I don’t care ’bout your opinion.